(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.05.15 2019고정90

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.05.15 2019고정90

재물손괴

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is owned by the Defendant, on July 2014, the Defendant purchased the E-owned land and the 2nd floor of the land immediately adjacent to the Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and removed the E-owned land and the 2nd floor of the land, and newly constructed the F Hospital parking lot in the relevant site.

Around 08:00 on July 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) mobilized human parts at the F Hospital parking lot of the victim; (b) destroyed the F Hospital parking wall (13m in length, 1.5m in height, 1.5m in length, and hereinafter “the wall of this case”) and damaged its utility.

2. In the case of the wall of this case, the gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant was installed in order to divide the boundaries between the defendant's preliminary building and the victim's pre-existing second-class house before several hundred and twenty years.

However, after the victim removed the second floor house, the victim partially damaged the wall of this case while constructing the parking lot, and as the defendant raised an objection, the victim agreed to restore the wall of this case again.

However, the victim restored the wall of this case to 1.5 meters from the height of the wall of this case, and the defendant, as the owner of the wall of this case, was merely the removal of the wall of this case in order to improve the height of the wall of this case.

3. Determination

A. First, according to the records on whether the victim is the owner of the instant wall, it is recognized that the victim newly constructed the instant wall while cutting the instant wall, and reinforced it with concrete reinforcement.

However, insofar as the Defendant asserts that he directly installed the instant wall as above, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant wall was owned by the victim on the ground that the victim partially reinforced the instant wall as above, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it.

(A) The victim did not properly state the reason why the wall was first installed. (B)

The victim of New History is the wall of this case.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.10.10 2019노1587

-서울동부지방법원 2018.08.31 2018고단1623

-대법원 1991. 9. 10. 선고 91도856 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2013.07.24 2012고정2974

-대구지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단100345